Cruelty, including doubts on chastity and physical assault, constitutes valid grounds for divorce under the Hindu Marriage Act, recognizing the irretrievable breakdown of marriage.

JUDGMENT :

M.B.Snehalatha, J.

Appellant/wife challenges the judgment and decree of the Family Court, which declined the relief of divorce sought by her under Section 13(1)(ia) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955.

2. Parties shall be referred to by their rank in the Original Petition.

3. The petitioner/wife filed the petition seeking divorce on the ground of cruelty contending as follows:

Parties are Hindus; their marriage was solemnized on 23.5.2010 as per Hindu rites and ceremonies. At the time of marriage, 90 sovereigns of gold ornaments and Rs.5 lakhs were given as patrimony. Another sum of Rs.2 lakhs was given at the time of 'adukkalakanal' ceremony. A boy child was born in the said wedlock. Respondent is a drunkard. Respondent doubted the chastity of the petitioner and physically and mentally tortured her raising wild allegations against her. Due to the unbearable torture of the respondent, she even made an attempt to commit suicide along with the child. Respondent misappropriated the entire gold ornaments of the petitioner and Rs.5 lakhs given as patrimony. After misappropriating the gold and cash, respondent again demanded an additional sum of Rs.5 lakhs and 50 sovereigns of gold as dowry and when the petitioner expressed the inability of her parents to give any additional amount and gold, respondent again ill-treated her physically and mentally. Due to the threat and ill treatment meted out, the petitioner had to leave the matrimonial home along with her child and she is now living at the mercy of her parents.

4. Respondent/husband filed counter denying the allegation of cruelty levelled against him and also denied the allegations regarding the misappropriation of gold and cash. It was also contended that most of the ornaments worn by the petitioner on the wedding day were not gold and the same were rented ornaments from a beautician. There was no demand for any dowry as alleged. Respondent is employed in Saudi Arabia for the past 15 years. The allegations regarding cruelty are false and incorrect and respondent has never harassed her physically and mentally. The attitude of the petitioner towards the respondent and his family was very cruel and inhumane and she didn’t look after the aged and ailing parents of the respondent. Petitioner used to spend her entire time in social media platforms and she was not interested in looking after the affairs of the family. As insisted by the petitioner, the parents of the respondents had to execute a settlement deed on 15.9.2010 bearing No.3055/2010 of SRO Haripad pertaining to the property having an extent of 12.14 Ares in the joint name of the petitioner and respondent. Petitioner had given 57 sovereigns of her gold ornaments to her father for purchasing a property. Respondent has never committed any acts of cruelty to the petitioner as alleged. Petitioner left the matrimonial home on her own accord after misappropriating the entire money of the respondent and 20 sovereigns of gold ornaments. Petitioner manhandled the mother of the respondent. Petitioner availed a loan of Rs.7 lakhs from a private finance and the said loan was repaid by her by using the funds of the respondent. The incidents of cruelty narrated in the petition are false and fabricated for the purpose of the petition and the petition is liable to be dismissed.

5. The point for consideration is whether the judgment and decree of the Family Court dismissing the petition for divorce need any interference by this Court.

6. Heard both sides.

7. Parties are Hindus. Admittedly the marriage was solemnized in the year 2010 and they were blessed with a boy child in the said wedlock.

8. The specific case of the petitioner/wife is that her husband doubted her chastity and ill treated her both physically and mentally and that he often physically assaulted her. It is also her case that after misappropriating the gold and cash given to her as patrimony, respondent again demanded more gold and cash from her house and thus tortured her, which